I will argue that NO, Bill O'Reilly is not credible. O'Reilly often makes comments that contradict statistics and documented history. His latest offense that was noticed by the public outside the Fox News audience was on January 16th, 2008, when he denied the existence of a large population of homeless veterans. Statistics show there are nearly 200,000 homeless vets currently living in the U.S. "[Homeless] vets may be out there, but there's not many out there," O'Reilly later said. According to the National Alliance to End Homelessness, in 2006 nearly 196,000 veterans were homeless on any given night. This isn't the first time he's shaded the truth and I'd love to debate about it.

For my opponent to win this debate he has to show that Bill is completly incapable of being believed.

First, what comments has Bill made that contradicts statistics and history? Do you have proof from anywhere besides a far-left blog and Keith Olbermann?

I watched the January 16th episode and you really should try to keep this in context. Bill does NOT disagree that there are homeless vets, but only disagrees with John Edwards stance that the homeless vets are caused by economic issues. The real truth is that most of these veterans are homeless due to addiction and mental illness.

My opponents biggest piece of "evidence" is that Bill stated there are not many
homeless veterans. This is a really general statement. Considering there are Millions of veterans 200,000 isn't really that many. Should something be done to fix it? Sure. But that statment isn't even close to shading the truth.

Your whole basis for stating Bill is not credible is built around shading the truth of his disagreement with John Edwards.

I have much more to say, but since the Con didn't give me much to go off of I will wait until the next round.

I saw nothing in the video that shows Bill as being uncredible. Try again.

Your statement that over a million Iraqis have been killed is an outright lie.The whole number you claim is based on an opinion poll. This poll would mean that over 15,000 people died over the last 4 weeks and the 4 weeks before that and the ........

Where are the bodies? Surely with so many people being killed every month there would be graves everywhere. Where are they?

Bill's statement about homeless vets was not ridiculous. Yes, even one homeless vet is too much, but you can't help those that don't want help.

It is obvious that some people vote based upon their preconceived opinions about a topic regardless of the merits of the arguments. I noticed none of the voters for Con posted any plausable reason for their irrational vote. Take heart Pro. Your arguments apparently stunned your advesary into silence.

PRO WINS because Con states in round 1 "Do you have proof from anywhere besides a far-left blog and Keith Olbermann?", thereby noting that Olbermann indeed offered proof. He then gave inadequate refutation.

Regardless of Olbermann's political affiliation, right is right. Though I am not a Nazi, if Hitler stated that ice is cold and this thermometer proves it, I would have to agree.

Further proof that O'Reilly is not credible can be seen on YouTube video: Letterman loses it; counter: 1:37 ()

Bill O'Reilly states that conditions in Iraq before the Iraq war were equally as atrocious as they are today. If you look at the number of Iraqis that have been killed since the U.S. invaded (over 1 million) (http://news.yahoo.com...) and consider the rate of time it took for them to die - vs - the number Hussein killed and the time it took him to kill them, O'Reilly is absolutely wrong. O"Reilly even noted that Hussein killed 3-4 hundred thousand. Compared to the U.S., the atrocities are no where near equal.

As for the statement "Considering there are Millions of veterans 200,000 isn't really that many', 200,000 is a constant number, which ranges as high as 4-500, 000 during the course of the year. 1 Homeless vet is too many. 200,000 is definitely too many, and 4-500,000 is particularly bad. O'Reilly's statements on homeless vets, regardless of how general, were and are as ridiculous as his stance on the war.